“Hard but fair” about the Greens: “… or this hype makes flupp”


“The climate is great – but what else do the Greens want?” headlined Frank Plasberg on Monday evening. An answer to the question had not to offer the program. Instead, there were staff speculations and an evergreen. The overview:

The Chancellor-Habeck-Vision of the evening: Even a “Tagesschau” excerpt from December 1, 2021, according to which the Federal Chancellor Robert Habeck just presented a strategy for better climate protection, Frank Plasberg had let his editors tinkering – just to Catherine Schulze to lure out of the reserve. Vain. The GroKo give it still, the question does not arise, answered the group leader of the Greens in the Bavarian state parliament.

Before that, JU chairman Tilman Kuban was triggered by Chancellor Habeck's image: “If he introduces a climate strategy, then I'd like to know what's in it,” says Kuban. At the moment, one does not know that exactly: “There is a big good mood bear on it, but not much else in it.”

“The Greens make themselves comfortable and stay with headlines,” criticized “World” editor Claudia Kade. If they had to choose a chancellor candidate, “maybe it would be something that Habeck and Baerbock are managing very well: the old wing fights that have always existed.”

The city-land-scissors of the evening: As the soaring flight of the Greens in Brandenburg is perceived in the countryside, Plasberg wanted to know of the writer Juli Zeh living there. When she talks to people, she feels that it is “the total contrast to the discourse that takes place in urban space,” the author said. In rural areas, the green success is “actually perceived as a threat, so much so that I sometimes worry about whether the hype around Habeck can not lead to a new polarization in society” – that is, people, to prevent Habeck, chose “the opposite”.

What is the opposite of Habeck? Plasberg asked. “That would be the AfD,” Zeh explained. Their “undercomplex” slogans like “Save the Diesel” or “Stop Wind Power” are “incredibly effective”.

More about SPIEGEL +

The AfD-Green comparison of the evening: Then Tilman Kuban recognized the opportunity for the AfD Green comparison, and he could not leave it unused: “In the end, they are very similar,” said the JU boss, “they both play with fears, the one with the fear the big climate collapse, the others with the fears around the migration. “

Katharina Schulze found this equation to be a “strong piece”, since in contrast to the Greens the AfD does not stand on the ground of the Basic Law. Incidentally, was the slogan of the Greens in the Bavarian state election “give courage instead of scare” – which would have won them not only in the cities, but also “in the countryside”.

She was supported by cabaret artist and moderator Florian Schroeder: “Many people have understood that this climate issue is not just any and that it is not a fear issue” – it is “fatal” to compare with the AfD.

The stoppage controversy of the evening: “If a region is infrastructural bad, environmental protection is almost like a luxury destination,” Juli Zeh said in her analysis. Those who do not know how their child is to come to the school 30 kilometers away feel “kidding” when others worry about “to-go cups”. Katharina Schulze's thesis that Green voters have recognized “that we can no longer afford to stand still”, Zeh did not want to acknowledge as universally valid: Standstill is not a consensus, not a few is “the pace of change even rather too fast”. The success of the Greens is very much due to the fact that “you stand on the tableau with fresh wind, good characters and an enormously weakening people-friendly sector”. But this hype is too little based on “wearable designs” for the future. Her impression was: “Either you have to do a great deal in the next few years, or this hype makes flupp.”

The evergreen of the evening: The old allegation that the Greens are a “prohibition party”. Plasberg played corresponding excerpts from Tilman Kuban's application speech for the JU presidency, in which he had accused the Green “prohibition fetishism”. She could only “shake her head tiredly”, Katharina Schulze replied, this “prohibition leg” is still boring. When the speech on the once-controversial Green Proposal of a “Veggie Day” came about, which is now common practice in many canteens, Juli Zeh stated: “Some goals develop with the spirit of the times.”

The sundae excursion of the evening: An ice cream sundae photo on her Instagram account had Katharina Schulze injecting a shitstorm in January – partly because she had eaten the ice cream after traveling by air in California, partly because the post had a plastic cup with plastic spoons. Now a credibility debate should be hung up on it. She studied in the US, Schulze defended, and also: “We do not need the better people, but better policies, we have to get to the big drivers.” It was about avoiding short-haul flights, making rail travel cheaper and taxing kerosene. Here she had a fight with Tilman Kuban, who emphasized the need for an “international solution” in terms of taxation.

A one-player with Green sympathizers, who set off on vacation at the airport, gave cabaret artist Schroeder the opportunity to top things off: “There is no party that is as attractive for double standards as the Greens: because you know you're doing something good, and then you're flying on vacation. ” That is in the DNA of the Green voter in it.

The dinner invitations of the evening: Even before the final round, in which Plasberg invited his guests to decide between dinner invitations by Robert Habeck and Annalena Baerbock, the unsympathetic gesture of reconciliation between Schulze and Kuban came: “We go ice cream together,” explained the JU chairman, ” but in a waffle “.

You want to answer the Sunday question for the covenant? Vote here:

How does the Civey method work?

The polling institute Civey works with a multi-level fully automated process. All representative real-time surveys are in a Germany-wide
Network out of more than 20,000 websites played (“Riversampling”), so it is not only users of SPIEGEL ONLINE interviewed. Anyone can participate in the surveys online and will be included in the representative result with their answers if they have registered. From these users, Civey draws a quoted sample that ensures that it matches the population, for example, in terms of age, gender and population density. Finally, in a third step, the results are weighted by other attendees' socio-demographic factors and attitudes to correct distortions and prevent manipulation. Further information can be found in the Civey FAQ.

Why is a registration necessary?

The registration helps to weigh the answers, thus allowing a result for the surveys, which is representative of the voting population in Germany. Each participant is asked for their gender, year of birth and place of residence. After that everyone can give their opinion in further surveys on different topics.

How do the results become representative?

The answer of each participant is weighted so that the result of a survey is representative of the population. For the Sunday question and the government monitor, this population comprises the population entitled to vote in Germany. The weighting is done fully automatically on the basis of the personal details at the registration as well as the history of earlier answers of a user. Further details on the methodology are available in the Civey white paper.

Will you reach enough participants online?

Opinion polls are usually conducted by phone or online. The significance of the results depends on how many people can be reached and how many actually participate in a survey when they are approached. Internet connections and landline connections are currently about equally widespread in Germany – with about 90 percent of households, mobile phones even 95 percent. The willingness to participate in all methods in the single-digit percentage range, especially experts estimate it for telephone surveys.
Thus, in both methods there is a group of people that can not be reached because they either have no connection to the respective network or do not want to participate in the survey. Therefore, a significant number of people must always be approached for a meaningful result. Civey surveys are currently in addition to SPIEGEL ONLINE in more than 20,000 other websites involved, including various media. This ensures that as many populations as possible can be reached.

How do I recognize the quality of a result?

Until the result of a survey becomes representative, enough different people have to participate. Whether this is already successful, makes Civey transparent, in that for each survey result a statistical error probability is specified. The number of participants and the interview time are also published for each survey.

What does it mean when the colored areas in the graphics overlap?

In our graphs, the statistical error is shown as a colored interval. This interval shows the uncertainty associated with a poll score. For example, on the Sunday question, one can not say exactly how many percent a party would get in a poll, but specify an interval where the outcome is likely to be. If the intervals of two survey values ​​overlap, then strictly speaking no statements about the difference can be made. For the Sunday question this means: If the poll numbers of two parties are so close together that overlap their error intervals, it can not be derived from which would currently perform better in the election.

What happens with my data?

The personal data of the users are stored encrypted on German servers and remain secret. Civey employees use only user IDs for reporting and can not associate users with their votes. The main purpose of the users' personal information is to weigh the answers and to ensure that the surveys are not manipulated. To prevent this, Civey uses both statistical and technical methods. In addition, Civey works with external partners who create audiences. Only if users of the privacy policy of both Civey as well as have been accepted by an external partner, your answers may be used by the partner to model these target groups. However, a partner does not receive information about your political and religious attitudes as well as those with which you can be identified. Civey users are also not ads based on their answers. Passing on to partners you can as a logged in user at any time here disagree. You can find more information about privacy at Civey here.

Who is behind Civey surveys?

At this point, readers in the app and on the mobile / stationary website have the opportunity to participate in a representative Civey survey. Civey is an online opinion research institute based in Berlin. To compile its representative surveys, the software of the company, founded in 2015, merges websites into a nationwide survey network. In addition to SPIEGEL ONLINE include, among other things, the “Tagesspiegel”, “World”, “Wirtschaftswoche” and “Rheinische Post”. Civey was funded by the ProFit funding program of Investitionsbank Berlin and the European Regional Development Fund.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.